"this movement traced this path to being almost entirely associated with a scammer"
You have a wildly distorted view of effective altruism. Peter Singer's book, The Life You Can Save, is nearly 15 years old. It was updated (more current statistics) about four years ago. The leading thought experiment presented in the book (the child drowning in a pond) was written by Singer over 50 years go.
The label "effective altruism" might be new (2011) but the ideas behind it have been around for a long time. There are terrible people who give money to many causes -- do you think all those causes are disreputable because of them?
It seems like a lot of people replying to me are somehow misunderstanding what I said.
In that quote I said that effective altruism is now "almost entirely associated with a scammer", I did not say "I almost entirely associate effective altruism with a scammer".
I read Singer's book around the time it was written! I have long been, and remain, a strong supporter of GiveWell's approach to effective charitable giving.
But you have to understand: The vast vast majority of people have never heard of these things, but have now heard of "effective altruism", because that phrase appeared in an article about the salacious acts of a criminal scam artist.
Yes, that's very frustrating! But what I'm saying is that people who consider themselves part of this movement could use to reflect on how it ended up in this position.
Also, there seems to be a lot of conflation between effective altruism (the principle) and Effective Altruism (the movement). The movement seems rotten to me and perhaps dangerous. The principle seems solid.
You have a wildly distorted view of effective altruism. Peter Singer's book, The Life You Can Save, is nearly 15 years old. It was updated (more current statistics) about four years ago. The leading thought experiment presented in the book (the child drowning in a pond) was written by Singer over 50 years go.
The label "effective altruism" might be new (2011) but the ideas behind it have been around for a long time. There are terrible people who give money to many causes -- do you think all those causes are disreputable because of them?